Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof)

J. Michael Diehl <mdiehl@triton.unm.edu> said:
According to Mike Godwin:
>> examining the mail that passes through his system, it seems likely that he
>> is violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
>
>That was my first question.  Then it occured to me that I have seen bbs's which
>have disclaimers wrt email privacy.  That is the loophole he is exploiting.

I haven't kept up on this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that
BBS's had a choice as to whether to operate as Common Carriers or not,
as long as they were strictly consistent. If they want to be categorized
as Common Carriers then they have to have strict policies of hands-off
privacy, are not liable for the content of messages on their board,
and the ECPA applies. But if they do not guarantee privacy, do not perform
any kind of censorship or other control of message contents, then they
are not Common Carriers and the ECPA does not apply.

Prodigy would be an example of the former, Internet email & news would
be an example of the latter.

Yes? No? Is this stale, ancient, and incorrect info? Or if the concept
is correct, is the problem that they are merely forwarding email from
systems that *are* CC's, and so the ECPA applies to that particular
service, whether or not it applies to the rest of what they do?
	Doug

Doug Merritt writes:

> I haven't kept up on this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that
> BBS's had a choice as to whether to operate as Common Carriers or not,
> as long as they were strictly consistent. If they want to be categorized
> as Common Carriers then they have to have strict policies of hands-off
> privacy, are not liable for the content of messages on their board,
> and the ECPA applies. But if they do not guarantee privacy, do not perform
> any kind of censorship or other control of message contents, then they
> are not Common Carriers and the ECPA does not apply.

ECPA is not limited to common carriers.
 
> Prodigy would be an example of the former, Internet email & news would
> be an example of the latter.
 
ECPA applies both to Prodigy and to Internet message traffic.


--Mike

>> ECPA applies both to Prodigy and to Internet message traffic.

Could you define "Internet message traffic"?  The ECPA says:

                     "(3)(a) Except as provided in
                     paragraph (b) of this subsection, a
                     person or entity providing an
                     electronic communication service to
                     the public shall not intentionally
                     divulge the contents of any
                     communication (other than one to such
                     person or entity, or an agent thereof)
                     while in transmission on that service
                     to any person or entity other than an
                     addressee or intended recipient of
                     such communication or an agent of such
                     addressee or intended recipient.

Does this apply to anyone who provides a service to the public?  Is it
legal for me to say "I'm gonna provide private email, but I reserve
the right to read it" in the service contract?  How is "public"
defined here?

Non-lawyers want to know :-)

		Marc